The more Soetoro balks at showing his credentials the more intense will be our crescendo of questioning voices. He will hear us in his SLEEP. He won’t escape from it. Eventually he will be tripping over the piles of his own manure.

Mario is very close in his reply. However he needs to push it over the edge re standing.

There’s an easy way to approach it: use the civil rights movement as the framework for standing.

Here’s how it works:

1. I am an individual
2. I have rights and privileges granted under the Constitution
3. I have the same rights as others.
4. Therefore, anything that hinders my rights or privileges under the Constitution or threatens my rights under the Constitution also infringes on everyone else’s rights.

Why is this important? Because what the courts are saying is that the American people lack standing under the Constitution to request warranto and to redress. We feel this is a terrible rub because it is. Imagine the courts telling the black population in the 60’s:

“You’re in the same boat as millions of black Americans. How is not being able to exercise your rights or be protected under these rights cause harm to you individually?

Here are some examples of our rights being violated:

1. Right to redress of grievances (e.g. not responding to complaints against an ineligible candidate or not suitably answering the question) (Amendment I)
2. Right to quo warranto(Amendment X)
3. Privilege of being a Natural Born Citizen (Article II and beyond)

Additionally, allowing a non-natural born citizen in office undermines the unique privilege of being a natural born citizen regardless as to whether or not one is running for president!!!

I’d say that affects each and every one of the natural born citizens in this country. This affects legislation, immigration, and a whole host of other privileges or laws created or modified with regards to natural born citizens.

Citizenship is a right bestowed upon us. When that right is violated, as in this case, we have all the standing in the world.

Approaching the problem as a Civil Rights grievance makes a lot of sense. In escense it seems as though that is really what depriving someone of their Constitutional rights would become anyway. Civil rights under the Constitution.

BO really was (and still is) a down and dirty scum bucket. He had some real gay encounters with Donald Young and Larry Sinclair and BO was and probably still is a crack head. I feel bad that Donald Young died just to protect BO’s image. I can’t believe that they let BO get away with having Donald Young murdered. To this day, they still haven’t caught anyone. This means that BO is involved and they are letting him get away with murder. Judging by all the descriptions, there is no way that Larry is lying. I believe every word that’s in that book. I hope that Larry’s book becomes a best seller.

You’re right. We’ve been doing this the wrong way. This really is a civil rights violation as it can affect all of our citizenship.

I have been doing a lot of research on the term “Natural Born Citizen” lately. One thing I can tell you is that many prior cases cite just being born in the U.S. as sufficient. However, there is an exception, and it can be found in our trusty Amendment XIV:

From the AMERICAN AND ENGLISH ENCYCLOPEDIA OF LAW, 2d Ed. Vol. 6 (1898)

[Citizenship Chapter – How Citizenship Acquired]
[17]
2. By Birth in Jurisdiction. — Natural citizenship is created by birth within the jurisdiction of the United States.1 To be a citizen of the United States [18] by reason of birth, a person must not only be born within its territorial limits, but must also be born subject to its jurisdiction; that is, in its power and obedience.

NOTES:
[17] Presumption from Residence. — The law presumes all persons who reside here to be citizens of the United States until the contrary appears. State v. Beackmo, 6 Blackf. (Ind.) 488.
1. Lynch v. Clarke, I Sandf. Ch.(N. Y.) 639; In re Look Tin Sing, 21 Fed. Rep. 905.
All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States. U. S. Rev. Stat., § 1992. See Planters’ Bank v. St. John, I Woods (U. S.) 585; McKay v. Campbell, 2 Sawy. (U. S.) 118.

Birth in United States, of Alien Parents. — Prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, the case of Lynch v. Clarke, I Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 584, was the leading case holding that birth within the United States created citizenship. The complainant in this case was born in 1819, in New York, of alien parents, during their temporary sojourix in the state. During the first year of her age her parents left this country, taking her with them, and never returned. It was held that the complainant was a citizen of this country by birth. This decision was based on the fact that this was the doctrine of the common law with respect to all persons born within the king’s allegiance, and, therefore, the law of the colonies, and then became the law of each state when independence was declared, and so continued until the adoption of the United States Constitution; after the adoption of the Constitution, the exclusive jurisdiction of this subject of citizenship passed to the United States government, and the same doctrine has there remained, and thus became the common law of the United States when the Union was consummated. This doctrine is national, and not for individual states. …

Interestingly enough, Amendment XIV really did influence the definition of Natural Born Citizen by clarifying the one key component of citizenship…jursidiction. Had Soetoro been born to a father who’s nation based their citizenship on where someone was born, this would be a no-brainer. But because Great Britain bases their citizenship primarily on the father, allegiance can never be assumed, and therefore the U.S. doesn’t have sole jurisdiction over the child.

This is why no one is going to touch this case. It not only affects Soetoro, but millions of other “citizens” who were born here but subject to the jurisdiction of other nations.

You might be right. But the NAACP won’t side with them because millions of U.S. “citizens” could be at risk for losing citizenship altogether should it be discovered they aren’t eligible re. Amendment XIV’s jurisdiction clause.

Mario does mention a case (NAACP v. Alabama) in his brief opposing the government’s motion to dismiss, but it has to do with asserting the right of legal standing of others. Mario is arguing that his plaintiff (Charles Kerchner) should be allowed to assert the right of legal standing of other members of the military (Kerchner is a retired Navy Reserve officer), because other military personnel might have difficulty asserting their own rights. Just look at what happened to Army Reserve Major Cook recently, where his deployment orders were revoked, his security clearance was revoked, and his civilian employer was pressured into firing him.

After watching Jon Stewart and Steve Colbert last night it’s obvious they are going to make jokes about the BC issue. That’s how they are going to spin it.

I only saw the last minute of Stewart and he had a funny clip from some old Magnum P.I. clips and it was Tom Selleck running around Hawaii looking for a BC. At the end of the clip Selleck is telling a gal ” I’ve been running all over Hawaii looking for a BC that doesn’t even exist” Now these were actual Magnum PI clips!

On Colbert he started off with music CD’s pertaining to certain people. Then he says, as he tries to hid his smiling face … “This one is for the birthers” and he shows Springsteins ‘ Born in the USA ‘.

Last night I heard on FOX that the other cop with Sgt Crowley, the black one, is considering filing charges against Gates for discrimination. Apparently Gates referred to the black cop as an Uncle Tom. Anyone else hear this?

Re: “millions of other “citizens” who were born here but subject to the jurisdiction of other nations.’

If you are born here (in the USA), you are subject to our jurisdicition. Anyone who is here, not only those who are born here, is subject to our jurisdiction.

The only people who are not subject to our jurisidiction are foreign diplomats.

A person with dual nationality or triple nationality is just as much subject to our jurisdictions as a born in the USA citizen. That is because subject to jurisdiction simply means subject to the laws. So, when someone visits the USA or is born here, if they break the law, they are subject to our jurisdiction.

Re: “allegiance can never be assumed.” We assume that anyone born in the USA has allegiance to the USA because our system confers allegiance based on the place of birth. Countries with Jus Sanguinis laws assume that a child whose parent or parents were citizens of that country have allegiance to that country.

However, what counts is our law. It has always been the case that children of parents from Jus Sangunis countries who are born in a Jus Soli country like the USA would be dual citizens. Yet we assume that the allegiance of someone born in the USA, whose parents were from a Jus Sanguinis country (like Italy, say) will be just as loyal as the children born in the USA of parents from a Jus Soli country.

wow can you believe it, they actually ask that in order for my son to play football he needs a raised seal for birth certificate. I should this is unamerican and say our president doesnt have to show his.

Jeff—I hope you sent this suggestion to Mario….I believe this is very sound information.!!

JeffM // July 31, 2009 at 3:15 pm

Mario is very close in his reply. However he needs to push it over the edge re standing.

There’s an easy way to approach it: use the civil rights movement as the framework for standing.

Here’s how it works:

1. I am an individual
2. I have rights and privileges granted under the Constitution
3. I have the same rights as others.
4. Therefore, anything that hinders my rights or privileges under the Constitution or threatens my rights under the Constitution also infringes on everyone else’s rights.

Why is this important? Because what the courts are saying is that the American people lack standing under the Constitution to request warranto and to redress. We feel this is a terrible rub because it is. Imagine the courts telling the black population in the 60’s:

“You’re in the same boat as millions of black Americans. How is not being able to exercise your rights or be protected under these rights cause harm to you individually?

Here are some examples of our rights being violated:

1. Right to redress of grievances (e.g. not responding to complaints against an ineligible candidate or not suitably answering the question) (Amendment I)
2. Right to quo warranto(Amendment X)
3. Privilege of being a Natural Born Citizen (Article II and beyond)

Additionally, allowing a non-natural born citizen in office undermines the unique privilege of being a natural born citizen regardless as to whether or not one is running for president!!!

I’d say that affects each and every one of the natural born citizens in this country. This affects legislation, immigration, and a whole host of other privileges or laws created or modified with regards to natural born citizens.

Citizenship is a right bestowed upon us. When that right is violated, as in this case, we have all the standing in the world.

“Here’s how it works:
1. I am an individual
2. I have rights and privileges granted under the Constitution
3. I have the same rights as others.
4. Therefore, anything that hinders my rights or privileges under the Constitution or threatens my rights under the Constitution also infringes on everyone else’s rights.”
——————————————————-
Thank you…I’ve been trying to hammer (maybe too lightly) on the first two…as some comments seem to veer off course and use ‘group’-type words…and those won’t do for ‘membership’ in the Constitutionalist Party, IMHO. If you want your race, gender, creed, club, whatever, represented…look elsewhere…this may not be for you; (again, just my understanding about who those rights are for)…
RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL.
—————————————————–
okay…now I’ll go back and read the rest of the 33 comments…

STOP
SHOCKING ALERT: “Cash for Clunkers” website When logged on to the CARS system, your computer is considered a Federal computer system and is the property of the U.S. Government ” All Of Your FILES!!!!!
Video: http://countusout.wordpress.com/

ms. helga @ 4:26: sounds like a nice idea, only might that be a copyright infringment, without consent from Larry? And, with respect that it represents all his long, hard work (and risk) he’s certainly entitled to any and all compensation coming back to him.

So, even if he was agreeable, seems the ‘proper’ thing would be (maybe you need to ask someone to make it a gift to you, if you’re broke) get one for yourself. ‘I don’t mean to be rude…but I think the man deserves it…Then again…if he wants to post a page a day…let that be his ‘gift’.
Doesn’t that sound reasonable?
(when’s your birthday?…or, better yet…how about as an early “kwanza” present?!…since Christmas is out, for you-know-who…)

The video has started a firestorm; it’s our duty to Stop this…..This has to be spread
Do not log on to “Cash for Clunkers” website When logged on to the CARS system, your computer is considered a Federal computer system and is the property of the U.S. Government ” All Of Your FILES on your computer belong to the Obama administrationhttp://countusout.wordpress.com/

Regarding copyright….
copyright laws are strict–only a percentage of the total body of a written work may be “copied” for specific usage—ex. school teachers cannot
“copy” an entire workbook en lieu of having their students buy it, thus depriving the rightful owner of their royalties. Schools usually have a
copyright posting near their photocopiers to reinforce copyright law.

Besides being illegal, it would not be the “right”
thing to do to Larry Sinclair after all his hard work. Better to support his endeavors and purchase the book (or borrow it if your library has a copy, Ms. Helga).

Rush is talking about the BC. Talking about Andrew M article. He’s saying Obama could make this all go away if he would just release it. Rush also saying Obama needs to release all his records –college, etc. so we really know who Obama is.
++++++++
I’m posting Vicki’s comment from that last thread in case others missed it. I’m glad to hear Rush has returned to talking about this.

I was at my public library today and they didn’t have Larry’s book. They said they would only have it when requests became large enough. I guarantee the interest in Larry’s book will get an increase if he feeds it out. I see we have no fishermen here.

Ms. Helga—suggestion—start a “call-a-thon”
to request your library purchase several copies.
Get your friends and family to keep calling the library. It works here with our public library system; I bet it will work there as well.
Are you in a metropolitan area per chance?

I posted this earlier. Is this true? What does it mean? Any thoughts here? Sorry to post the same link twice, but this is kind of disturbing to me. Maybe I’m just getting paranoid, but I think it is very strange.

Okay. No takers on my earlier post. Just want to know if Alex Jones is a fraud or on the money. Have any of you watched his movie ‘The Obama Deception’? I will give a link (since I figured out how to). It is rather long, but VERY eye-opening. I cannot say I agree with everything in the movie, but I do agree with most of it. I LOVE you commenters here, but if I am out of line with what I post & asking for your input on, please tell me. I don’t want to offend or be seen as “nuts”, I just want feedback.PLEASE watch the movie & reply. It is over 2 hours long. It took me a couple of days to watch. And, as you will see in the film, they discuss the Federal
Reserve. There is a very strong movement among the people to audit them to see where our money is really going.
Bernanke is getting scared.